DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on June 3, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Office Action does not establish a serious search burden amongst the identified groups of claims”. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons provided in the restriction/election requirement mailed on April 3, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 3, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
It appears that the last sentence in [0028] has grammatical errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “465” has been used to designate both portions of the tab 460 (See both Figs. 4 and 5).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "40" and "475" have both been used to designate “stopper surface” ([0038]).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a battery subassembly”, “a housing retaining element of the battery subassembly”, “an arm engagement element to interface with a battery subassembly”, and “a housing engagement element to interface with a housing retaining element of the battery subassembly” as claimed in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following:
A conjunctive term(s) between paragraphs, sentences or phrases is/are missing in claims 1-5. For example, a conjunctive term between paragraphs is missing in claim 1.
The recitation “from the first position and the second position” in the end of claim 4 does appear to be “from the first position to the second position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 3, it is unclear as to how a housing engagement element interfaces (470) with a housing retaining element of the battery subassembly, at least because the housing engagement element has already interfaced with the projection arm of the projection (730), as shown in Figs. 1, 4 and 7.
In claim 3, it is unclear how to understand “based on” in “… move between a first position and a second position based on the battery subassembly …”. The claim is indefinite.
In claim 5, it is unclear how “a housing engagement element to couple the housing with a battery subassembly” and “a portion of the housing to be disposed in the battery subassembly”.
The term “compliant” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “compliant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a compliant member” has been rendered indefinite due to the use of relative term “compliant”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maskew et al. (EP 3276705 A1, hereafter Maskew).
Regarding claim 1, Maskew teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a sensing element (thermistor 4020/thermistor tip 4416) disposed at least partially in a housing, wherein the sensing element held in the housing (See the annotated Figs. below) via a locking component (flexible clip 4412) and a member (potting material 4424) causes the sensing element to remain in contact with a battery cell of a vehicle (3810 and Abstract). See paragraph [0114] and Figs. 44 and 45.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskew.
Regarding claim 6, Maskew teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the locking component removably coupled with the housing ([0114]: “The clip 4412 further includes vertical portions 4418 which are secured in holes 4420 by tabs 4422” implies a removably coupling). The limitation “the locking component to move between a first position and a second position relative to the housing” represents a function of the locking component rather than a structural feature. The above-said removably coupling necessarily involves a first position and a second position relative to the housing. Note that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 7, Maskew teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the member is a compliant member to provide tolerance to the sensing element to keep the sensing element in contact with the battery cell of the vehicle (See “compliant material” in [0019]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Maskew teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein,
the sensing element comprises a head (4416) and a conduit (4020 excluding 4416) and a portion of the conduit is disposed outside the head (See Figs. 44-45); and
the housing comprises a first opening, a second opening, and a support structure (4424, or 4424+4412), the head is disposed in the first opening and the portion of the conduit extending through the second opening, and the support structure supports the portion of the conduit. See the annotated Figs. 44-45.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights